FNSL: "Broadly Offensive"?

Tax?

See above.

"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."
~Frederick Douglass

Or to use the cliff notes: Freedom isn't Free. Nicely done, Winter.

Just as an aside philosophic comment, there is one difference with communism.


While democracies certainly have become violent, violence is not a core tenet of democracy.

Communist ideology on the other hand insists that violent revolution is necessary and inevitable.

Very, very true. If I'm thinking correctly, in a democracy, people are usually of a mindset that if something is failing and it proves to be the government's fault, then you vote them from office and place someone that is hopefully more effective in their place.

In communism, there is no such hope. Only way to change the government is to revolt.

From what I've read, the figure is more likely somewhere between 65 and 93 million killed. But even the low end number eclipses the Nazi horrors.

The difference is that communism has lots of people in the west who will consistantly downplay its atrocities and genocides. So much so, that communisms ideology of class hate is still considered socially acceptible, while the Nazi's equally reprehensible ideology of race hate is condemned in most civilized societies. (Of course, in practice, many communist states were every bit as genocidally racist as Nazi Germany. Just ask the Ukranians, the Tibetans, the Crimean Tatars, etc.)

I don't however equate socialism with communism. I'm far from a fan of socialism, but it is possible--and not uncommon--for nations to have partially socialist economies and still remain democratic and generally respect human rights and the rule of law.

Oh gosh. Communism did too kill less than 100 million people. Maybe only 65 million. That makes it all right, then, doesn't it?

It is inherent in the concept of Communism. Class struggle, with the Proletariat/Worker/Peasant class overthrowing the Evil Oppressor class. Decide that society is better off without the Evil Oppressor class, and the cost-effective, practical solution is - obviously - to "liquidate" it. In China, that meant killing essentially anyone who owned land; there's a lot of land in China. In Cambodia it meant killing almost everyone who could read and write. In Ukraine under Stalin, it meant killing all those stubborn peasants who wanted to own the land they worked. You get the picture. They're not people; they're a Class.

Deluded individuals might seriously think Communism could be made to work in an acceptable way - as long as they stick to theory (though the theory is fatally flawed too, but that's another story). But the record speaks for itself.

According to some, so does Democracy.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

The major Democratic countries all got their start through warfare. USA obviously, France's revolution was pretty bloody, topped off with war most of Europe. England's transition was slower but it had moments of violence as well.

The problem with an entrenched state system with any resources is that it rarely gives up power without violence.

Non-violent revolutions as advocated by Ghandi were still far in the future at the time Marx wrote down his ideas in 1848.

Considering at the time violence was being inflicted on the working class, as Marx saw it, his rebellion would have been to liberate people he saw as opressed. (in 1848 many workers WERE oppressed, they didnt have the benefit of safety rules, wage laws, minimum age restrictions, etc. )

It wasnt till much later that the ideology was embraced by a ruthless group in Russia that communism began to aquire the bloody "might makes right" philosophy. This was in a country accostomed to rule by an iron fist already, so they were replacing one set of opressors for another.

The Success of the Soviet Union in World War 2 and China's revolution (also bloody minded) was the example set. Two countries showing that a Totalitarian state in the name of Communism could be successful at maintaining power. It was these states that all these revolutions were emulating.

Not the Ideology put forth by Marx. The Ideology was Secondary. These people wanted something, power, and used "Communism" to get it. In a true Marxist state the government would grow less and less intrusive over time, as people learned to "Share the land", There havent been any of those.

Im not saying Communist Ideology is any good. But if were going to blame someone for all those mass killings, blame the people responsible - rather than their label.

I'd actually thought of that very quote when posting, yet it's not a democracy-specific statement per se.

The term liberty has been bandied about by many, often meaning 'freedom from (specific group)' rather than 'freedom to (do as one likes)'. It's an interesting word used by many for many purposes, from communists to anarchists.

And I too think there is such a thing as a 'just war' against oppressors - I think most people would agree.

But to the larger question - blaming the tyrants - one has to consider what gives such tyrants their licence.

No one person can kill millions without a large, entrenched supporting group.

So I see a mix of responsibilities: 1) the tyrants and 2) the people who support them through an unexamined ideology.

Eclipsed in total murders only. The horrors and insanity themselves should not be compared. They are exactly the same.

I've read enough of the libertarian cant in enough threads to know that those espousing it are as much True Believers as any of those they decry. There is no sense in trying to say anything to them about it - the Commies and Pinkos are just the monsters under their beds.

Personally, I have absolutely no respect for this type of purblind political... hell, cultural... ignorance no matter from which end of the spectrum it hails (or heils!). But, still, cartoon Nazis and cartoon John Birchers alike aren't really hurting anyone as long as they are not griefing. I do think that an audio clip from Spike Jones and His City Slickers doing "Der Fuehrer's Face" might be an appropriate counter, though.

LAst time I checked, avatars were representations of RL people and not cartoons. I think they hurt by seeding their idiologies to anyone weak or prejudiced enough to listen.

The main thing I can do is not tolerate it and continue to shine a light where there is hatred.

Ahh - I see. The source these websites use is an author on the fringes of historical research. It seems he took all previous estimations on genocides, used all of the High end estimates and added them together.

Basically claiming that all the accepted estimates are too low, and in Every case cited the higher end of any particular estimate is claimed to be more realistic by him.

Im not debating the fact that these totalitarian governments werent thoroughly evil, and not constesting the fact some governments killed millions and others 10's of millions. The number just was so HIGH that I quickly added up the estimates Ive read over the years and thought - waitaminute.

----------------------------------------------------------------
The thing im trying to get across - and that many dont get - is that it was the people in charge of these countires that were evil, it wasnt that they were "corrupted by comunism" they were corrupted by power. And they were following the example of other States which had been corrupted by power.

Two of its tennats of communism - single party rule and state ownership of property lend themselves well to the goals of Totalitarian States. Its not the communism using the State, its the State using the ideas of communism to establish a facade of legitimacy.

So Its not communism is evil so much is that communism has been used as a tool by the evil.

Remember, a recent example: Saddam claimed to be a Democracy. He even held elections ..

Well there will always be people willing support who is in power. Whoever controls the support of the Army, is in power. Plenty of people will sign up to help the tyrant to grab a piece of power for themselves. Once in power, its possible to indoctrinate the citizens. Its the core of Totalitiarianism.

What happened in Russia and China was actually less surprizing than what happened in germany.

In Russia and China the people had been opressed for so long it was a way of life. For the average person, Life under the General Secretary and the party wasnt so much different than life under the Czar and his officials, At first.

In Germany they had much more a tradition of freedom of political thought and will. But they were swept up by Fascism. Of course Hitler secured sympathy with the army early on ..

Two sum up since I think the debate might be obscuring my point:

Theres never really been a true communist country. Just Autocratic states who said they were communist.

Theres been plenty of States bound on keeping control through systematic murder though.

In a true communist country, government becomes redundant and fades away. Thats part of the idea. If everyone can get along and share everything , everyone is an equal, all will do their part etc.

It probably is an impossible thing. Theres a lot of irrational beleifs concerning human nature there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Also -

Nearly all revolutions are violent. The ones that arent are the exception. The fact that Marx advocated violent revolution is not the same thing as him advocating killing millions of people to maintain power.

The violence he advocated was the violence necessary to wrest the state away from is opressors, which is not unlike what happens in all revolutions.

Addtionally people would be forced to give up their land by the new government. I was under the impression Marx didnt think all those people should be killed, just deprived of their property for the "good of the people".

The decision to kill millions to maintain power or to further the states power (such as selling the peoples' food to pay for industrialization) was made by those autocratic states, not Marx(who had been dead for a long time before any of this).

------------------------------------

Im not a communist - I am a student of history, and I try to have a perspective on what all happened that resulted in the things described.

Its far too easy to just throw labels and lump people together without looking into individual motivations behind the things that happen.

Thats alright Colette, we can agree to disagree. Not in the mood for serious discussion today.

Well, after the revolution I understand the ACTUAL idea is to run things democratically - but with everything belonging to "the people"

But who is going to vote to give away all their stuff?

Not enough people to make the system work.

Which is why the only examples of "Communism" it only exists as a name used to "legitimize" autocratic opressive state control of the population.